A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Assault of a driver, etc.) under Article 5-10 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “the instant provision”), the lower court found the Defendant guilty by applying the instant provision, despite that the Defendant did not fall under “in the course of driving” under Article 5-10(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “the instant provision”), it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine does not apply to the instant provision to the same effect as the grounds for

However, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion to the effect that the defendant's act constitutes "in the course of driving" under the provision of this case, and that the defendant's act constitutes "in the course of driving" when the defendant temporarily stops in the taxi for the defendant's getting out of the 3th parallel No. 20 through No. 4th parallel of the judgment of the court below, and that the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is hard to find any error of misunderstanding the facts alleged by the defendant or misunderstanding the legal principles.

3. Since the current Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination on the Defendant’s unfair argument of sentencing, has a unique area for sentencing determination in the current Criminal Procedure Act, it is reasonable to respect this in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant appear to have already been considered when determining the sentence at the lower court.